Ray Peat And Stalinism

[nomoreketones]

Ray Peat articulates the truth as he believes it is and I've never heard him expressing anger at those who don't agree with him. As human beings we are all going to see the world differently and we all will have our own ideas about history and how the world works. In my opinion, the person who expresses anger at someone else for having a different opinion or different understanding of the world is always the one who is morally wrong.

 

[Based Kantian]

Yeah, you can spit out tankie memes about the holodomor being fake (and this is somehow more acceptable than e.g. holocaust denialism) all day long but you can literally just go there and talk to people whose families were there for it. It wasn't something that happened centuries ago and is attested by some incomplete fragment of a dusty scroll in the Vatican archives or something. The idea that southern Russians and Ukrainians hallucinated the political/sadistic side of the holodomor is just insulting and only follows from an infantile belief that nobody could bring charges against communism that aren't entirely fabricated. Here, Ray, and most reflexive anti-Americans, are somewhere between myopic and willfully ignorant. Again, these people also fail to ever mention the completely obnoxious treatment of ethnic minority groups by the USSR, or the treatment of the majority Russians. Luckily our government is partially remediating this through education but...

The Rothschilds and the USSR were in it together in at least some circumstances, e.g. the Congo where the communist government was seemingly only installed to make way for the more American-conglamerate friendly successor and in most former French, Portugese colonies where either US or Soviet subservience invariably followed "marxist" "islamist," "anti-colonial" etc revolutions

"Tankie" is an incredibly strange thing to call somebody for criticizing Kruschev's secret speech, seeing as it was Kruschev who sent tanks into Hungary and "stalinists" were among those he was putting down.

 

[Based Kantian]

RP is a health guru. I don't see how his political stance is of any significance.

Health is a matter of the organism in its environment. The organism's social environment and the forces that produce and reproduce it are of central importance. Furthermore, Ray rightfully objects to being seen as a "guru". Anyone who thinks that his scientific project and political philosophy aren't intimately related has read neither Mind and Tissue, nor any of the fiercely political and philosophical essays on his website

 

[managing]

See, you're one of the people I was talking about. This thread is about the podcast: if you want to know what we're talking about, go watch the podcast. Danny Roddy has timestamps for most of his podcasts with Peat and you'll see what we're talking about. I'm not really interested in a play-by-play dissection of what Peat said nor am I interested in spoon feeding, it'll be all the same anyways if you just watch it yourself.

You're actually making yourself sound ignorant, as we have all seen it, and he makes it very clear that he is basically a Stalinist, or at the least has rock-hard sympathies. On the other hand, you're still arguing about whether he even said anything about Stalin. That's not what this threads about. This thread is about whether he's right or wrong, and how it can be fit into the 'Peat framework'. It's not about whether he said Stalinist things: he did. It's whether he's right ir wrong about them.

Note: I don't remember him ever directly saying "I am a Stalinist", but there's a solid hour or more of him saying pro-Stalin stuff, saying all the history is wrong, apologising for Lenin and Stalin, etc. If it walks like a Stalinist and talks like a Stalinist, then it's a Stalinist. If you defend or downplay mostly everything a country did, with very little reliable evidence, then you support that country.

I mean, maybe I interpreted what he said wrong. Maybe he is just slightly sympathetic to the Soviets. But that's not how I interpreted him.

As for how Peat can be a Stalinist and a Trump supporter: I don't think he's that much of a Trump supporter. I think he has (or had) hope in Trump, and if you watch the Danny Roddy podcast you'll see him mention that the only two presidential candidates saying anything that actually matters is Trump and Bernie. I think Peat's ambivalence and slight hope in Trump got people here excited considering how much negative coverage he gets + because Peat doesn't seem like the kind of guy to support a Republican.

Peat is also obviously very complex, so it"s not like two sides are seeing what they want in him. I think he genuinely believes what he said about Trump but has more nuance on the inside.

And about defending Nazi's: it doesn't matter who you defend, as long as they didn't actually do what they've been accused of. If someone says Hitler killed Jesus it doesn't make you a Nazi when you defend Hitler. The concept of "defending making you a part of" is actually why the Nazi's were accused of progressively more hysterical things over the years, like human skin lampshades (which never happened).

If you're wrong though, and are obviously just defending them because they're on the "right side", then that kinda does make you a supporter. Defending because you agree with them ideologically makes you a sympathizer and perhaps even a supporter, at the least.

On the other hand, Peat doesn't just refute a few things, he basically thinks all of the history of the Soviets is false and that they were the good guys. And on the other hand, he sees Nazi's hidden in every corner, responsible for all the world's ills.

But that's just my interpretation of him.

Got it: If you defend Nazism, you are just being factual. But if you discuss Stalin, you are a Stalinist.

 

[managing]

Start from 1 hour 10 min the video he posted. This is just him defending stalinism rather than him actually going leftard to the extent that he's gone other places but I also don't want to spend all my time on this

Thank you. I appreciate you pointing me in the direction, which is all I wanted. I really don't hear much in the way of defending Stalin and I hear nothing ideological at all (ie, defending Stalinism).

I think the most "favorable" thing I heard him say was that Stalin was defending the interests of the Russian people against the Rothschilds. He does seem to argue that Stalin was an idealist. Ray also seems willing to call the US (and UK and Germany) "imperialists". I suppose that is what a Stalinist (or any other Soviet) would call them. He does say Kruschev created a campaign of slandering Stalin, which seems demonstrably true. But accepting that doesn't mean that one denies that Stalin did anything bad.

What I see is that he is a strong contrarian in all things. That definitely comes through. He seems fascinated with what he views as a historical mistake. I think he is infatuated with the story and contrary view. But I wouldn't mistake that for an infatuation with Stalin, nor with Stalinism. Rather, he sees an alternative narrative as a way to indict the "victors who write the history books" by detailing how horribly wrong they may have gotten some things. Nitpicking this argument for things true or not would miss that point altogether. Why not do it with Nazism one might ask? I suppose he could, if a compelling counternarrative existed. But what Nazi apologism/holocaust denial is out there is horribly contrived and inconsistent, and doesn't even try to hide its hateful, self-serving motivation.

The only thing I find consistent in his "ideology" or politics is anti-authoritarianism. History, those who write history books, are authorities. He takes delight in finding holes in their narratives. I really don't have an opinion on whether he is right. And even he consistently declaims "authority" over biology, health, medicine, as well as politics and history, and art. I don't think he would see himself as taking an authoritative position on what Stalin did or anything else. I think all of that, inevitably, is being projected on him (just like the idea of "a Peat diet") because of conditioning to expect people to choose sides and fight for a dogmatic interpretation.

As usual, with Ray Peat, I think he could (maybe should) end it with one organizing principle: Think. Perceive. Act.

 

[ken]

People are often conditioned by their early life. Ray was born in mid 1930's, had probably socialist. communist sympathizing parents, lived end of depression. WW2, a fan of Roosevelt etc. Goes to college, gets masters in William Blake. Sixties starts a very unorthodox college in Mexico. We start a war in Asia and he's giving out student deferments and has dispensed with grades. He certainly attracts government interest. One hanger on he latter identifies as CIA informant. Another guest was Madalyn O'Hair and son fleeing arrest warrants in states. It was pretty exciting stuff. There's a O'Hair biography that tells the tale. Apparently the school wasn't doing well financially, So Ray got a teaching job back in the states. After he left O'hair called the police and said they were dealing drugs. The police were disappointed that it was only Niacin. Anyway she had staged a coup. When Ray found out, he called the Archbishop of Mexico city and told him that this dangerous atheist had taken over. The federal police picked them up and deported them to stand trial in the States.

 

[managing]

People are often conditioned by their early life. Ray was born in mid 1930's, had probably socialist. communist sympathizing parents, lived end of depression. WW2, a fan of Roosevelt etc. Goes to college, gets masters in William Blake. Sixties starts a very unorthodox college in Mexico. We start a war in Asia and he's giving out student deferments and has dispensed with grades. He certainly attracts government interest. One hanger on he latter identifies as CIA informant. Another guest was Madalyn O'Hair and son fleeing arrest warrants in states. It was pretty exciting stuff. There's a O'Hair biography that tells the tale. Apparently the school wasn't doing well financially, So Ray got a teaching job back in the states. After he left O'hair called the police and said they were dealing drugs. The police were disappointed that it was only Niacin. Anyway she had staged a coup. When Ray found out, he called the Archbishop of Mexico city and told him that this dangerous atheist had taken over. The federal police picked them up and deported them to stand trial in the States.

Very interesting. That led me to this interview with a quote the perfectly demonstrates what I was saying in my post previous to yours:

Organizing the Panic | An Interview with Dr. Ray Peat | Vision and Acceptance

"I don’t present evidence as necessarily authoritative, but as something that has to be dealt with if it conflicts with current theory. When Halton Arp assembled pictures of galaxies with very different redshifts, but with substance connecting them, he was denied further use of the telescopes—evidence annoys the authorities."

 

[managing]

Very interesting. That led me to this interview with a quote the perfectly demonstrates what I was saying in my post previous to yours:

Organizing the Panic | An Interview with Dr. Ray Peat | Vision and Acceptance

"I don’t present evidence as necessarily authoritative, but as something that has to be dealt with if it conflicts with current theory. When Halton Arp assembled pictures of galaxies with very different redshifts, but with substance connecting them, he was denied further use of the telescopes—evidence annoys the authorities."

What a treasure trove. Here is more, on point:

"Since the contextuality of communication is always in the foreground when I talk or write, you know that someone is confusing me with an authority when they talk about my “protocol” for something. Context is everything, and it’s individual and empirical."

"In classes, where the subject matter is an area of knowledge, I look for aspects of it that I think will be unexpected by the students, so they will sense that they are going to change as they explore the new knowledge. When a particular person’s health is the issue, I have always tried to design a short course in the things that I think they need to know. It’s usually not what they expected and wanted, but if they can see points that illuminate their experience, they might be motivated to think about the implications. I think I try to make people aware of the importance of perceiving complexity and the incompleteness of tentative conclusions."

"When people start thinking about the things in their life that can be changed, they are exercising aspects of their organism that had been atrophied by being in an authoritarian culture. Authoritarians talk about protocols, but the only valid ‘protocol’ would be something like ‘perceive, think, act.’"

"Always being ready to move ahead with problems that had seemed unsolvable is important."

Ray Peat Interviews Revisited | Vision and Acceptance

 

[Elie]

The Untold History of the United States on Netflix was interesting to watch and see American and Soviet histories vis a vis the two worlds wars in a way different than the allied narrative.

 

[michael94]

The Untold History of the United States on Netflix was interesting to watch and see American and Soviet histories vis a vis the two worlds wars in a way different than the allied narrative.

but could we really expect something on netflix to give the full story

 

[snacks]

"Tankie" is an incredibly strange thing to call somebody for criticizing Kruschev's secret speech, seeing as it was Kruschev who sent tanks into Hungary and "stalinists" were among those he was putting down.

You're free to whine about the term's technical applicability but at present talkie is mostly a self-descriptor for youngish people who are REALLY into Stalin and spend too much time online. Also, pretending that Grover Furr's autistic ranting on Khrushchev (which is partly accurate despite the man's cognitive impairment fwiw; half of my own family was "Ukrainian" until 2014 thanks to old nik) is all he's ever written or said about the USSR and stalin is silly

 

[managing]

but could we really expect something on netflix to give the full story

I am really getting into the RP quotes I dropped above. So, I think he would say something like there is no such thing as the full story. Does it tell the story in a way that expands your understanding? Does it tell the story in a way that changes you?

These are questions that open. "Does it give the full story" is a question that closes.

 

[paymanz]

Any political system lead by uncaring, greedy and power thirsty individuals is bound to be harmful, while the opposite is true, regardless on whether it is socialist or capitalist.

nice

 

[orewashin]

Health is a matter of the organism in its environment. The organism's social environment and the forces that produce and reproduce it are of central importance. Furthermore, Ray rightfully objects to being seen as a "guru". Anyone who thinks that his scientific project and political philosophy aren't intimately related has read neither Mind and Tissue, nor any of the fiercely political and philosophical essays on his website

Trying to change something you can't just burns you out. How much significance do you think your votes or net arguments have? It's just theoretical fun. If RP wanted to direct people in a proactive direction, he'd make people try to have influence in their local community. There, you can at least see the fruit of your influence.

You say that as if a person can change the political environment. The most a person can do is move to another country, change their local jurisdiction, try to win arguments online, or not expend energy in this direction at all.

RP doesn't like being called a guru, but what's a better term? Physiologist? Health expert? Like a doctor? There's the lack of verbal distinction that RP mentioned. And if RP isn't a guru, how about other people in the health sphere? A person isn't something because they refuse to be called something, that's decided by whoever is talking.

 

[managing]

Trying to change something you can't just burns you out. How much significance do you think your votes or net arguments have? It's just theoretical fun. If RP wanted to direct people in a proactive direction, he'd make people try to have influence in their local community. There, you can at least see the fruit of your influence.

You say that as if a person can change the political environment. The most a person can do is move to another country, change their local jurisdiction, try to win arguments online, or not expend energy in this direction at all.

RP doesn't like being called a guru, but what's a better term? Physiologist? Health expert? Like a doctor? There's the lack of verbal distinction that RP mentioned. And if RP isn't a guru, how about other people in the health sphere? A person isn't something because they refuse to be called something, that's decided by whoever is talking.

I think RP would choose a term like "mentor" or maybe something more provocative like "disrupter", although that smacks of hipster vanity.

These quotes:
"When people start thinking about the things in their life that can be changed, they are exercising aspects of their organism that had been atrophied by being in an authoritarian culture. Authoritarians talk about protocols, but the only valid ‘protocol’ would be something like ‘perceive, think, act.’"

"Always being ready to move ahead with problems that had seemed unsolvable is important."

Were in response to a question about how to deal with the stress of things you cannot change.

 

[michael94]

I am really getting into the RP quotes I dropped above. So, I think he would say something like there is no such thing as the full story. Does it tell the story in a way that expands your understanding? Does it tell the story in a way that changes you?

These are questions that open. "Does it give the full story" is a question that closes.

Maybe, but I think its fair to assume something on Netflix would be subversive. Not really a complex issue for me in that regard, others may feel differently of course

 

[orewashin]

I think RP would choose a term like "mentor" or maybe something more provocative like "disrupter", although that smacks of hipster vanity.

These quotes:
"When people start thinking about the things in their life that can be changed, they are exercising aspects of their organism that had been atrophied by being in an authoritarian culture. Authoritarians talk about protocols, but the only valid ‘protocol’ would be something like ‘perceive, think, act.’"

"Always being ready to move ahead with problems that had seemed unsolvable is important."

Were in response to a question about how to deal with the stress of things you cannot change.

Those quotes are strongly related to health because of their association with learned helplessness and serotonin. Again, RP is a health guru or "mentor".

I guess guru is too much of a religious term, but it's a term that's more well-known than mentor. Then is RP a health mentor, or a physiology mentor. How do I tell dim or verbally deficient people who RP is in a couple of words?

 

[snacks]

Those quotes are strongly related to health because of their association with learned helplessness and serotonin. Again, RP is a health guru or "mentor".

I guess guru is too much of a religious term, but it's a term that's more well-known than mentor. Then is RP a health mentor, or a physiology mentor. How do I tell dim or verbally deficient people who RP is in a couple of words?

Real answer-- no amount of describing someone will convey who they really are. The way to go is to build a strong physique and healthy body so that when people ask you what you did you just say "oh, look into Ray Peat he's a real smart guy." hair-splitting about terminology not as effective as this

 

[orewashin]

Real answer-- no amount of describing someone will convey who they really are. The way to go is to build a strong physique and healthy body so that when people ask you what you did you just say "oh, look into Ray Peat he's a real smart guy." hair-splitting about terminology not as effective as this

That's a smart way to go about it.

 

[Based Kantian]

Trying to change something you can't just burns you out. How much significance do you think your votes or net arguments have? It's just theoretical fun. If RP wanted to direct people in a proactive direction, he'd make people try to have influence in their local community. There, you can at least see the fruit of your influence.

You say that as if a person can change the political environment. The most a person can do is move to another country, change their local jurisdiction, try to win arguments online, or not expend energy in this direction at all.

RP doesn't like being called a guru, but what's a better term? Physiologist? Health expert? Like a doctor? There's the lack of verbal distinction that RP mentioned. And if RP isn't a guru, how about other people in the health sphere? A person isn't something because they refuse to be called something, that's decided by whoever is talking.

What is to be done? I feel, in general, and so too here, quite incompetent to respond. Frequently this question sabotages the logical progress of knowledge that alone allows for change.

—Theodor Adorno, Taboos on the Teaching Vocation

The words "client" and "patient" express the passivity of the customer in relation to the lawyer or physician. The same passivity exists wherever "expertise" replaces self-reliance. The individual- ism that was idealized in America has been replaced by a client mentality. The authority of power can't be questioned if the people don't have their own knowledge, ability, and power.

—Ray Peat, Public Passivity and the Screw (newsletter of September 2003)

Ray has devoted his career to providing information and evidence to those who are willing and able to think and feel for themselves. We should not shy away from thinking and feeling just because we cannot accomplish the tasks that thought demands of us on our own